'Bout time.
Dammit, someone’s taken my teacup! I mean, I can see it over there on the other side of my desk but it used to be over here, therefore it’s been taken!
It’s not appropriate to call people names in ATMB.
Please do not do this again.
A bit of friendly advice here, dear heart: When you are in a hole, the first rule is to stop digging.
One thing is clear about Poptech: he/she is a one trick pony. Out 268 posts, 268 are about climate science/global warming and complaining about how he/she is treated when posting about those topics.
He/she is also - how can I put it? - very vehement when discussing those topics. From what I’ve seen on this board, posters like that tend to burn out spectacularly and quickly.
I disagree. Poptech is nothing if not impartial. His own website says so: “Impartial Analysis of Popular Trends and Technology”
Also, FoxNews is “Fair and Balanced” and Conservapedia is “Trustworthy”. They wouldn’t say so if it weren’t true.
I hope this post has been Peer Reviewed. At least ten times.
It’s been peered at. Does that count?
I guess we can say that it doesn’t need a Peer Review.
So peers off Gyrate 
It was only censored if re-shelving a misplaced book is censorship.
Why not start a thread asking the mods to change that for you? I’m sure they’d be thrilled to help you out.
You can’t be censored “from” or “to” something. Those words make no sense in the context of censoring. “To” and “from” are used in conjunction with verbs like, oh, I don’t know, “move”?
So, if an editor of a newspaper takes a controversial science report and buries it among the sports pages, there is nothing really wrong with such an action?
It might not be censorship, but it’s certainly not conducive to the furtherance of knowledge.
If a newspaper editor notices that a sports article was accidentally printed in the oped pages, then he’d probably run a notice in the “corrections and clarifications” section of the next day’s paper. If he notices the article BEFORE the paper goes to bed, then he would be remiss if he didn’t move it into the sports section, which is where it’s supposed to be. That’s not editing, that’s just minor sorting out.
Similarly, if a librarian notices that an astrology book is shelved among the astronomy books, she’s supposed to remove it and reshelve it. She’s not censoring the book, she’s just putting it in its proper place. Censoring the book would be to remove it completely from the library, or removing at least some of its content.
In our case a “moved” notice is placed in the original forum. So it’s like if the editor placed a big “I moved this article to the sports page” sign in the science section. Hardly burying it.
More like “I moved your article to the sports pages because I think it is unworthy of being in the real news section.”, but I agree, it’s hardly burying it… except in terms of killing it as a real subject of merit.
ivan astikov, you’re making a bad comparison here. Sports and science articles are kept separate so people can find them more easily. There’s no rule that would keep a global warming thread out of the Pit. There have been global warming threads in the Pit before. The main difference between the Pit and Great Debates is the style of discussion, not the kinds of topics: if people want to talk about the fine points of policy they can do it in GD, and if they want to wail and nash their teeth about the stupidity of their opponents, they can do it in the Pit. It’s pretty normal to see a GD thread and a Pit thread about the same topic at the same time.
Here’s a global warming-related Pit thread from November. The OP believes AGW is real. Here’s another one from a year ago where it looks like the OP takes a more negative view of the climate change crowd.
And as for “burying” a thread in the Pit: I know the Pit is toward the bottom of the page, but the Pit has slightly more threads and posts than Great Debates does. Moving a thread to a more active forum is burying it the same way moderating a post is ignoring it.
I don’t think you can bury anything in the Pit. It comes under so much scrutiny, from every angle, that it is sort of highlighted.
Back on topic; Poptech, can you stop your complainning about moderation for a second and tell us who you think is responsible for cattle mutilations?
Crap, it’s early. Gnash their teeth.
There was I science report? Where? I saw some witnessing by a scientifically unsophisticated layman, like John Kerry, but no actual ‘science report’. Now, the witnessing got egregious enough that it needed to be censored over[sup]*[/sup] to the pit, but heck, that happens, it’s not even all that unusual.
[sup]*[/sup]I realize that this construction makes little sense. It’s written the way it is so Poptech can grok it.